Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TygrBright

(20,759 posts)
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 08:37 PM Feb 2017

So... 8-Member Supreme Court for the Next Four Years?

Because Yertle the Senate Majority Leader claimed that it was bad or wrong or something to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during a Presidential Campaign. We have to wait until after the campaign is over and the "people have spoken" or something like that.

Well, the 2020 Presidential Campaign started today in Melbourne Florida with 9000 people at a campaign rally.

So... did Yertle miss his window?

Are we stuck with an 8-member court until after the 2020 election, now?

Will someone ask him, on camera and on the record?

curiously,

Bright

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So... 8-Member Supreme Court for the Next Four Years? (Original Post) TygrBright Feb 2017 OP
Yeah, and Cruz and others argued it was historically normal Alice11111 Feb 2017 #1
On MSNBC adds are being run in favor of Trumps nominee katmondoo Feb 2017 #2
I think it's referred to as the McConnell Rule, no ? CincyDem Feb 2017 #3
McConnell's Rules don't apply to McConnell... dchill Feb 2017 #11
the GOP has now made it precedent that you can make up new rules to excuse not seating Takket Feb 2017 #4
Yeap tiL KGOP goes full nuke uponit7771 Feb 2017 #5
Yep. That And SDJay Feb 2017 #6
They should. Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2017 #7
Well, gosh... I think someone should remind Chuck Schumer of the McConnell Rule... TygrBright Feb 2017 #8
I just tweeted that question to the turtle dixiegrrrrl Feb 2017 #9
Good on you! Hope it gets noticed & RT'd a lot. n/t TygrBright Feb 2017 #10

katmondoo

(6,457 posts)
2. On MSNBC adds are being run in favor of Trumps nominee
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 08:43 PM
Feb 2017

A woman comes on extolling his virtues and he appears looking very white and very much in charge. I guess as a woman I am suppose to swoon. NOT

CincyDem

(6,357 posts)
3. I think it's referred to as the McConnell Rule, no ?
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 08:46 PM
Feb 2017


He reframed 20 year old comments from Joe B into the Biden rule and clarified that the senate should step aside on supreme court nominations during the campaign.

That feels pretty f'ing clear (unless of course you're a republican).

Takket

(21,565 posts)
4. the GOP has now made it precedent that you can make up new rules to excuse not seating
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 08:48 PM
Feb 2017

a new member on SCOTUS.

So along those lines, I offer the following reason for Dems to use:

FUCK DRUMPF

SDJay

(1,089 posts)
6. Yep. That And
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 08:51 PM
Feb 2017

a POTUS should not be allowed to nominate to the SC if his/her mental stability is in question.

Or whatever. Just make shit up like they did. I think that's fine if it prevents these fuckers from stealing a SC seat.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,412 posts)
7. They should.
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 09:15 PM
Feb 2017

Doubt anybody will. His hearings start in March. The pressure on Democrats to cave on confirming him, especially those facing re-election in red states, will be something fierce- which will necessitate Democrats to constantly point back to GOP opposition to even holding hearings for Garland.

TygrBright

(20,759 posts)
8. Well, gosh... I think someone should remind Chuck Schumer of the McConnell Rule...
Sat Feb 18, 2017, 09:28 PM
Feb 2017

...and ask him to invoke it!

We got any New Yorkers here willing to remind him?

helpfully,
Bright

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So... 8-Member Supreme C...